Our environment shapes how our genes affect us though. Genes work in mysterious ways and we may not enjoy what the give to us. Good or bad, genes are what turn on nurture so our environment can shape who we are, how we behave, and possibly who we love. Ridley certainly backs his theories with much evidence and this book strongly displays his opinion of how nature brings about nurture. From the text, I gathered that Ridley wrote The Agile Gene from a biological perspective of psychology.
Nature in terms of health and social care defines as the qualities we are born with that makes us what we are. Nurture defines as how we are influenced as a child by the environment around us, including other people. Many scientists, philosophers and researches argue that individuals’ personalities and talents come from their DNA and many others argue that the majority of it is influenced by life experiences and the environment. There have been studies involving identical and fraternal twins to find out if it is the genetics (nature) or environment (nurture), which was the effective one on the case of personality development. Which side of the debate is more influential?
M1 – the nature – nurture debate Philosophers and theorist have argued that it is the way we are born to be the way we are. Whereas other theorists have argued that it is the way we are brought up and influenced by our surroundings that makes us the way we are. The way we look can be argued to be mainly due to nature, the genes we inherit from our parents makes us look the way we do. For example, when people say “don’t you look like your mother/father” Genetic inheritance can determine our eye colour, whether we have curly or straight hair or how tall we will be. We also can inherit certain disease which can have an impact on our health.
This theory was first developed by Abraham Maslow. He described that self-actualizing people share such things like awareness and acceptance of themselves and lean towards spontaneity and openness and are very positive people in general. Maslow believed that the highest personal need was that of self-actualization. Later, Carl Rogers introduced conditions of worth where in the effort to gain positive regard from others, people will deny their true selves to meet expectations. An advantage of this theory is that it drives parents to encourage their children at a young age to build up a large self-esteem; their sense of self-worth.
Although this theory hasn’t been proven to be true, I believe nurture affects our behavior more than nature. John Locke’s theory of tabula rasa supports the idea of nurture. Basically what John Locke says is that we are all born with blank slate and our experiences fill up these slates. This means that we will become most likely like the people who raised us; sharing some of their values, likes and dislikes, etc. An example of this is a girl by the name of Oxana.
Feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not.”(Lewis 9). By this Lewis means that although we are humans, and humans have primal instincts, The Law of Nature is
Some scientists fall into the other camp that it’s the “nurturing that makes us who we are”. Most modern theorists feel that both nature and nurture has an effect on what we’re like. It has been widely known that theorists have used twins for the studies of nature vs. nurture. It was found to be a better study when they analyzed both identical and fraternal twins, either raised together or raised apart. We credit Sir Francis Galton, famous first cousin of Charles Darwin, for this.
Running head: NATURE VS NURTURE: TWO STUDIES Nature vs Nurture: Two Studies Lesli A. Hill Western Governors University Nature vs Nurture: Two Studies Almost since the beginning of time, humans have tried to figure out why we are the way we are. Are our traits the result of our genetics, or our living situation? This question is the crux of the raging debate called “nature versus nurture.” The nature vs. nurture debate is all about determining whether we are shaped more by heredity or environment, and it has been applied to everything from intelligence to disease processes to sexual orientation. Proponents of the nature theory believe that we are destined have certain qualities because they are pre-programmed into our DNA, while supporters of the nurture theory believe that we learn our
Due to the sudden change in society people are forced to follow a new set of evolutionary guidelines that otherwise would contradict Darwinism. Many theories such as the alloparenting hypothesis and the kin selection hypothesis help support and explain the choices that many people now choose when seeking sexual partners; interestingly it is clear that there is a new link between the evolutionary reasoning to seeking a partner and the new ways in which people adapt to society. Males have now reported to be happier settling down with one partner whilst they are still evolutionarily built to reproduce (Kuhle, 2013). Females have also changed in the way that they seek partners; whilst the level of aggression in competition is still relatively low compared to males women now compete amongst themselves so not only look physically more attractive but to be intellectually superior (Campbell, 2004). Clearly as society progresses it is likely to take a more active influence in the way that people choose sexual
Heraclitus, as well as Cratylus, were both Ontological and Epistemological thinkers who examined the nature of our world and what we know to be true, if any. During this Pre-socratic time philosophers were trying to understand the nature of our being, better known as ontology. They wanted to understand the “ what is and what is not” and used many materialistic ideals to do so. They used their senses to understand the changes that occurred all around us in everyday life. They believed that nature was intelligible and by observing the behaviour our of environment, would give understanding or reason to our nature as human beings.